W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: labels as DAV:target values (was Re: Fewer new versioning methods, please!)

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:29:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200010112129.RAA19106@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>

   Could somebody explain why locking of version selectors is a required

Locking of version selectors (or anything else for that matter)
is not a required feature of the versioning protocol.  But
the versioning protocol is designed to be compatible with the
locking protocol.

   What is the purpose?

It allows you to GET the current contents of a checked-out version
selector, and then PUT your updates without having to worry about
overwriting updates to that checked-out version selector by another
client (potentially, another client running on your behalf).

   What is the result?

Just usual locking semantics.  I.e. can't modify content, dead properties,
or MOVE it without holding the lock token.

   Does it affect checkouts?

Yes, you do need the lock token to checkout a locked version selector.
(But not if you are applying the checkout to a version, only if you
are directly checking out the version selector).  I personally voted
against having CHECKOUT care about locks (since it doesn't change
the content or dead properties of the version selector), but was
outvoted (and I didn't care very much one way or the other).

   I reason that if it was not possible to lock a version selector,
   then it would be possible to use labels as DAV:target values, which seems to
   me to be a very useful feature.

Yes, compatibility with locking semantics is one of the reasons why we
do not support the use of labels as DAV:target values.  Having locking
work with versioning was deemed more important than having a label as
a DAV:target value.

   I would imagine that the only affect locking a version selector would have
   is that it would prevent others from doing a PROPPATCH to one of the version
   selector's own properties.

A version selector only has its own properties (and its own content).
Some of its properties (and content) happen to be the same as that of
some version while it is in the checked-in state, but they are still
its own properties and its own content.

So locking a version selector has the usual semantics, i.e. it prevents
modification to the content and dead properties of that version selector
unless the lock token is specified.

   It wouldn't prevent others from checking out one
   of the versions related to the version selector;

That is correct, a lock on a version selector does not prevent you
from doing a checkout on any of the versions of the version history
of the current target.  In particular, you can do a CHECKOUT/DAV:target
on a locked version selector without the lock token (since that checkout
is applied to the target version, and not to the version selector

   it wouldn't prevent others
   from doing a PUT or a PROPPATCH to the version to which the version selector
   points (that would have to be accomplished by doing a LOCK on the version
   resource, rather than the version selector).

You can't do a PUT or a PROPPATCH to the content or dead properties
of a version (even a mutable version requires it to be done with a

It is true that a system that supports mutable versions will need to
check the locks of every version selector whose target is that mutable
version before allowing a CHECKIN/DAV:replace on that version, but
that is avoidable by not supporting mutable versions (the sensible
thing to do :-).  In any case, at least it is only one routine, CHECKIN
where this check would have to be made, and none of the other update

   Has anybody done some serious thinking, in general, about how they are going
   to implement locking interacting with versioning?

I know that we have.

   What happens when a
   versioning-unaware client tries to LOCK a resource, not aware that it is
   actually locking a version selector?  Is the behaviour what that client
   would expect?

Yup.  That's been one of the challenges of designing the versioning protocol,
because there are a large number of clients out there (e.g. office-2000
clients) that will be trying to lock resources and will not be aware that
they are actually locking a version selector.

   Finally, I wonder why the draft specifically disallows using labels as
   DAV:target values.

One important reason is that it is incompatible with locking, and as
indicated above, compatibility with locking was deemed more important
(especially if you care about interoperability) than was having labels
as DAV:target values.  In addition, all of the arguments that apply
to locks are likely to apply to access control as well, so locking
is just the most obvious reason.

   Just because some implementations would find it
   difficult doesn't mean all of them will.

This is a problem for all implementations that care about locking,
and that will care about access control.

   Why not make it optional -- and if
   a server doesn't support a value of <D:label>foo</D:label> then the server
   can respond with an error meaning "unsupported value given for DAV:target

Defining a feature of the protocol that is known to be incompatible
with another important feature of the protocol is a very serious
source of non-interoperability.  Any client functionality or protocol
extension based on one of the features will be incompatible with all
functionality or protocol extensions based on the other feature.
To work around the incompatibility, one ends up designing additional
features that serve the same function but in a subtly different way
to avoid the incompatibility.  But then all layered functionality must
also be revisited and duplicated.  As the number of incompatible
features increase, the problematic interactions increase combinatorially.

Compare this to the question of making labeling optional.  Labeling
is designed to be completely compatible with HTTP-1.1, WebDAV, core
versioning, and all other advanced versioning features.  If any server
encounters the need to provide labeling support, it can do so
independent of what other optional features of the protocol it has
chosen to support.

Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2000 17:30:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:45 UTC